Potential Mobile Source Reduction Measures Potential Mobile Source Reduction Measures Port Measures– Lightering Non-Road Idling Drayage Trucks Coralie Cooper & Jesse Colman, NESCAUM Ozone Transport Commission Meeting Ozone Transport Commission Meeting March 16, 2010
Presentation Outline Presentation Outline • Background • Potential Measures – Lightering Controls – Nonroad Idling Limitation – Drayage Emissions Reductions • Methodology • Emissions Estimates & Potential Reductions • Considerations/Issues • Conclusions 2
Lightering—Background Lightering Background • What is lightering? What is lightering? – Bulk product transfer from one marine vessel to another another • Why does lightering take place? – To reduce tanker draft – To expedite product shipment to multiple ports • Where do lightering emissions come from? g g • Controlled lightering employs vapor-balancing technology 3
Lightering—Background Lightering Background • Emission Factors Tons of VOC emitted per million barrels lightered Product Emission Factor #2 Diesel 0.20 Crude 19.80 Naphtha 25.90 Gasoline 70.70 Source: US EPA’s AP-42 4
Lightering Lightering—Existing Measures Existing Measures Delaware’s SR1124 §46 • In 2008, DE imposed a percentage-based limit on uncontrolled lightering • Steadily reduces the limit of allowable uncontrolled • Steadily reduces the limit of allowable uncontrolled lightering • Title V stationary source – “ any fixed building structure facility installation equipment any fixed building, structure, facility, installation, equipment or any motor vehicle, waterborne craft , aircraft or diesel locomotive deposited, parked, moored, or otherwise remaining temporarily in place , which emits or may emit any air contaminant” (DE Admin Code Title 7 Section 1101) any air contaminant (DE Admin Code, Title 7, Section 1101) • Regulated entities: lightering service companies • Enforcement activities • Anticipated reductions: 1115 tpy VOCs (2012) OC ( ) 5
Lightering—Emissions Estimates and Potential Reductions Volume VOC 57% 95% (million Emissions Reduction Reduction Area Product BBLs) (tons) (tons) (tons) Narragansett Gasoline, Bay Kerosene 0.2 4 2 4 Long Island Finished Sound Sound Products Products 1 4 1.4 99 99 56 56 94 94 New York Gasoline, Fuel Harbor Oil, Other 48.3 889 506 844 Delaware Bay l Crude d 98.8 1,956 1,115 1,858 Chesapeake Bay Gasoline 0.3 11 6 10 TOTAL 2,959 570* 1,695* *Beginning May 1, 2012, Delaware’s lightering regulation will reduce annual VOC emissions by 1,115 tons. This quantity is excluded from TOTAL potential reductions since these emissions reductions are anticipated Thi i i l d d f TOTAL i l d i i h i i d i i i d to result from existing Delaware regulation. These estimates assume that lightering can be controlled on 100% of ships. 6
Lightering—Considerations/Conclusions • Lack of up-to-date lightering data • Few regulated entities • Few regulated entities • Compliance cost—ship upgrades, lightering time crew training time, crew training • Effect of Oil Pollution Act of 1990 on fleet • OTC regional measure vs EPA national • OTC regional measure vs. EPA national measure • Conclusion: Lightering controls will contribute Conclusion: Lightering controls will contribute significant VOC reductions, but reductions will vary from state to state y 7
Nonroad DieseI Emissions Nonroad DieseI Emissions MANE VU 2002 M bil MANE VU 2002 Mobile NOx NO MANE VU 2002 Mobile PM2.5 Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) 182,588 17,332 nonroad diesel 22,107 Other Nonroad Mobile Mobile Diesel 378,873 Other Mobile Nonroad category excludes railroad equipment and marine vessels Nonroad category excludes railroad equipment and marine vessels 8
Nonroad Idling Activity and Emissions Nonroad Idling Activity and Emissions • Three sources of data on activity: Three sources of data on activity: – CARB, John Deere, EPA • CARB estimates nonroad equipment idles CARB estimates nonroad equipment idles 7.2% of operating time • John Deere data indicated machines idle 42% percent of time • EPA data set very limited but was closer to John Deere than CARB • Idling emission factors available from EPA 9
Emissions Estimation (continued) Emissions Estimation (continued) • NESCAUM used the NONROAD model to NESCAUM used the NONROAD model to estimate populations of 65 nonroad engine types in each of the OTC states for 2009 • A spreadsheet was used to calculate annual activity (hours in operation) for each equipment type • The spreadsheet allows the user to vary idli idling rates and the percent of idling eligible d h f idli li ibl for reduction each year 10
Potential Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions in the OTR O Idling rate g NOx tons HC tons PM tons assumption reduced reduced reduced 42% of time 8,188 4,172 803 spent idling 7.2% of time 1,474 751 145 spent idling 11
Nonroad Idling Conclusions Nonroad Idling Conclusions • Estimates of idling vary widely, possibly due g y y, p y to method of gathering data on idling activity • Assuming machines idle at the low end of estimates (7%), significant emissions i (7%) i ifi i i reductions could be achieved if idling were restricted in the OTR restricted in the OTR • California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut idling restrictions provide model policies for the region • Relatively low cost • Question: who will be the regulated entity? Q ? 12
Reducing Emissions From Port- Related Truck Traffic ff • Trucks carrying freight into and out of ports T k i f i ht i t d t f t (drayage) have been estimated to contribute as much as one third of overall port-related as much as one third of overall port related emissions • The Port of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) has evaluated several approaches to reduce drayage emissions • These approaches if adopted region wide • These approaches if adopted region-wide could result in lower drayage-related emissions at OTR ports p 13
PANYNJ Analysis PANYNJ Analysis • Contractors for PANYNJ evaluated several scenarios for reducing drayage emissions • NESCAUM selected one approach to estimate potential OTR reductions: potential OTR reductions: • Replacement of pre-1994 drayage vehicles with 2004 vehicles in 2011 • Subsequent replacement of pre-2007 trucks in 2017 with 2007 trucks • PANYNJ estimates the port would realize annual reductions of 10% in NOx and 9% in PM from drayage • Annual benefits would continue for 24 years A l b fit ld ti f 24 14
Potential NOx Reductions in the OTR Annual freight State (millions 2006 Drayage Annual Benefit Lifetime Benefit 24 tons) Emissions (tpy) 10% (tpy) years (tons) NY/NJ 157 1,935 190 4,555 CT 17 212 21 499 DE 11 137 13 324 MA 26 320 31 755 MD 41 508 50 1,197 ME 26 320 31 755 NH 4 50 5 117 NJ 45 553 54 1,302 NY 10 125 12 295 PA PA 103 103 1 263 1,263 124 124 2,976 2 976 RI 9 114 11 268 VA 55 673 66 1,587 Total Total 504 504 6 210 6,210 610 610 14 629 14,629 15
Potential PM 2.5 Reduction in the OTR State Annual freight Annual Benefit Lifetime Benefit 24 2006 Drayage (millions tons) 9% (tpy) years (tons) Emissions (tpy) NY/NJ 157 54 5.0 131 CT 17 6 0.5 13 DE 11 4 0.4 9 MA 26 9 0.8 20 MD 41 14 1.3 31 ME 26 9 0.8 20 NH 4 1 0.1 3 NJ 45 15 1.4 34 NY 10 3 0.3 8 PA 103 35 3.3 78 RI 9 3 0.3 7 VA 55 19 1.7 42 Total Total 504 504 173 173 16 0 16.0 396 396 16
Potential Models and Issues Potential Models and Issues • The PANYNJ drayage program provides a potential model for the rest of the region d l f th t f th i • PANYNJ estimates its program will cost $84 million for the two phases p • Port of LA, Long Beach, and Oakland gate fees provide a model of how the program might be paid for (where gate fees are feasible) • Structure of regulation • Trucking companies operate on very slim margins and there are numerous companies operating at p p g Ports in the region • A possible result of the regulation is that newer trucks would replace drayage trucks at ports, but the p y g p displaced drayage trucks would end up employed in other shipping activities 17
Drayage Conclusions Drayage Conclusions • Potential emissions reductions at OTR ports Potential emissions reductions at OTR ports are significant • Emissions reductions would likely occur in y environmental justice areas and in densely populated urban areas • Assuming the trucks operate outside of the port, emissions reduction estimates presented here could be understated d h ld b d d 18
Recommend
More recommend
